|
P-Mack posted:Is Halifax still the record then if we're sticking to HE I'm not counting exploding your own stuff (which is why I didn't go with Crossroads myself).
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 07:19 |
|
|
wdarkk posted:I'm not counting exploding your own stuff (which is why I didn't go with Crossroads myself). Probably the Black Tom explosion then, assuming it really was German sabotage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
"HE HE HE!", they laughed as they both turned the keys. Re: Gazetting, iirc in the Aubrey books he was constantly worried that he wouldn't become a "post-captain" with the guaranteed employment and rise in rank that comes with it (due to how seniority worked in the RN at that time, so long as you manage to live long enough and don't gently caress up too badly you'll make Admiral eventually) - even though he was actually being called a captain, had captained ships several times, and had done very well in battle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
It's sort of a big plot point in all those men of iron franchises, Sharpe himself spent a lot of time going back and forth being brevit promoted/demoted in the ranks for drama and or plot reasons.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:The T-26 came out in 1931, and is/was vastly superior to anything the Italians had. In 1936 we saw the appearance of the 35 series of French tanks that blew anything the Italians had out of the water. The only comparable tank for the Italians would've been the Fiat 3000 and that was a massive piece of poo poo that were essentially gussied up versions of the FT-17. I'll give you the t-26, that was great. Mentioning a French tank that, again, only first started coming into service the year after I'm talking about isn't exactly making your argument though. My point is exactly they were pretty tooled up for the early 30s then stuff started coming out that obsoleted their gear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
an early 30s war would have been interesting all surplus FTs and tankettes and high power biplane fighters
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
zoux posted:Does anyone go "You sank my battleship"? And we haven't properly won a conflict since then. Makes you think...
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I'll give you the t-26, that was great. Mentioning a French tank that, again, only first started coming into service the year after I'm talking about isn't exactly making your argument though. My point is exactly they were pretty tooled up for the early 30s then stuff started coming out that obsoleted their gear. Sure, let me just invalidate your entire argument by telling you they built tankettes and not tanks. Not sure how the gently caress that negates the BT-2, M2 Light Tank, or the Lt.Vz.34 though. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
Neophyte posted:"HE HE HE!", they laughed as they both turned the keys. Hmm, you’re giving me a bad feeling that the second book, Post Captain, is named after a rank Aubrey does not attain in it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
nrook posted:Hmm, you’re giving me a bad feeling that the second book, Post Captain, is named after a rank Aubrey does not attain in it. Wasn’t it the last sentence of the book? Been a long time since I read it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Sure, let me just invalidate your entire argument by telling you they built tankettes and not tanks. The M2A1 (ten whole tanks!) wasn't delivered until 1936 and even then didn't have anything bigger than a machine gun until after the Spanish Civil War. There were a whole 50 ltvz built total, some of them delivered only in 1936. Russia was extremely well equipped for the early 30s tank wise, but most other countries? A whole bunch, literally thousands, of tankettes wasn't second class by comparison. Yet. Again. All the new poo poo that started coming in around 1936 is exactly what obsoleted their previously pretty reasonable gear. Like I keep saying 'Italy was doing pretty well in 1935 but then their stuff started becoming obsolete' and you keep saying 'hey this tank that got introduced around and after then totally owned their poo poo' and I'm not disagreeing?! feedmegin fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Sep 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Wasn’t it the last sentence of the book? Been a long time since I read it. I haven’t finished it yet 😬 I hope Maturin gets his phd so he can make post doctor, or post doc for short
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:And we haven't properly won a conflict since then. The only US Navy ship in commission to sink an enemy ship is the USS Constitution, which did so in the War of 1812.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
bewbies posted:That being said, there are two caveats to this answer. A Tico was not designed to win a surface fight -- its primary mission is air defense in support of a carrier. As it happens, a modern carrier wing would fall over themselves to go strike an old battlewagon with no air cover. Like, a single flight of Hornets could put more HE on said Iowa than any ship has ever had put on it in the history of the world. I think, anyway...I'm open to counter arguments. quote:The other factor is that the Tico could be equipped with a heavy anti ship missile fairly easily. LRASM probably would't cripple an Iowa, but if you need more missile, scaling up is very easy. So, in a couple of months, the Tico can launch a full spread of Super-LRASMs with 3 ton AP warheads and that would be that. You could also reactivate a TLAM-N and fire it bearing and range at the Iowa, that should work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
Cessna posted:The only US Navy ship in commission to sink an enemy ship is the USS Constitution, which did so in the War of 1812. So you're saying we should recommission the USS Wisconsin and invade Toronto?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
Cessna posted:The only US Navy ship in commission to sink an enemy ship is the USS Constitution, which did so in the War of 1812. they should never have decommissioned the Missouri
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Disagreed entirely, you can't just invent an imaginary battleship killing missile in three months. You can maybe bodge a BROACH into an LRASM or a vertical launch booster onto a JASSM but BROACH still isn't quite what you want. Borrow one from the Russians? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:So you're saying we should recommission the USS Wisconsin and invade Toronto? Not sure about that... We would end up with a bunch of Leafs fans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
razak posted:Not sure about that... We would end up with a bunch of Leafs fans. Little known milhist fact, the term "forlorn hope" actually was coined to describe Leafs fans
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:they should never have decommissioned the Missouri Keeping around one to fill the roll of the Blueridge as a com-prestige ship would have been baller.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Agreed here, cruisers fight cruisers. Tico vs. Newport News results in Newport News getting herself owned horribly. The SOM says it can be launched from ships, maybe that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:an early 30s war would have been interesting
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:The M2A1 (ten whole tanks!) wasn't delivered until 1936 and even then didn't have anything bigger than a machine gun until after the Spanish Civil War. There were a whole 50 ltvz built total, some of them delivered only in 1936. Russia was extremely well equipped for the early 30s tank wise, but most other countries? A whole bunch, literally thousands, of tankettes wasn't second class by comparison. So numbers is what we're going by? Alright. What's the specific criteria you're setting down on this? Because the Italians, as far as I can tell, may have only gotten about 500-600 tankettes produced by 1935. Meanwhile, the British have slightly less Carden-Lloyd tankettes, on top of any Light Tanks you want to add to that particular pile. Don't forget to add whatever Medium Tanks they produced by then. The Japanese had about half as many tankettes as Italy by the end of 1935, but they carried turrets and better armament. The Type 89 I-Go production numbers can also be added to our total.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
Sharpe finally got made a full Colonel... In the Dutch Army.... e: I think a nice thing was I think in some other book by Benard Cornwell, not really explicitly part of the Sharpe series/universe during the US Civil War, Sharpe's son I think is a French officer observing the Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:they should never have decommissioned the Missouri Missouri never sank an enemy ship. I"m like 99.9% sure that her guns were only ever used for shore bombardments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
How many warships have US subs sunk
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 23:51
|
|
|
I'm not too familiar with the present USN arsenal. Is there a VLS-capable torpedo filling the ASROC role? I'd guess that as the best option for a Tico or Burke sinking a battleship. With general HE warheads on your SSMs you're looking at the old bomb vs. torpedo comparison.Neophyte posted:Re: Gazetting, iirc in the Aubrey books he was constantly worried that he wouldn't become a "post-captain" with the guaranteed employment and rise in rank that comes with it (due to how seniority worked in the RN at that time, so long as you manage to live long enough and don't gently caress up too badly you'll make Admiral eventually) - even though he was actually being called a captain, had captained ships several times, and had done very well in battle. This is the distinction between captain-as-title and captain-as-rank, though. The former is a larger concept than the latter—everyone with the rank of captain has the title as well, but not vice versa. A lieutenant commanding an independent vessel is by courtesy entitled to be called captain aboard it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:The M2A1 (ten whole tanks!) wasn't delivered until 1936 and even then didn't have anything bigger than a machine gun until after the Spanish Civil War. There were a whole 50 ltvz built total, some of them delivered only in 1936. Russia was extremely well equipped for the early 30s tank wise, but most other countries? A whole bunch, literally thousands, of tankettes wasn't second class by comparison. Specifically the Pak 36 was introduced in 1936 (development started in 33) and pretty much made anything with 20mm or less of armor obsolete.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:So numbers is what we're going by? Alright. So Italy was a first rank military power is literally what you're saying here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:So Italy was a first rank military power is literally what you're saying here. No, because their tanks were poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
Neophyte posted:
In that period Aubrey was mostly concerned about getting in Steel's Navy List, which like the Gazette was a private publication which, none the less, was treated as an official record using information gleaned from the Admiralty. At the time only Post-Captains (officers who had achieved the substantive rank/post of Captain, not merely the courtesy title of 'captain' for being in command of a ship) and Admirals were put on the Navy List. Newly-promoted Post-Captains were quite literally at the bottom of the List and, as you say, advancement was by strict seniority. As Captains above you were advanced, killed or retired, and as new more junior officers were 'made Post', your name moved up the list. In theory, once you reached the top of the list of Captains, at the next opening you became a Rear Admiral of The Blue and then progressed through the grades and colours of Admiral. In practice the Admiralty would often pluck senior Captains near the top of the List and advance them by special order, or at least give them the temporary and non-substantive title of Commodore. In exceptional circumstances you could even skip up some of the Admiral rungs. Aubrey's name would have appeared regularly in the Gazette, but while he remained a Lieutenant (and mere Master-and-Commander) not in the Navy List. The Gazette will have noted his commission as a Lieutenant, his postings to various ships, his ascension to the command of the Sophie and carried mentions of his successes in combat and his prize earnings, as well as his marriage. But he would not have been on the Navy List...yet. Which is another reason why 'Gazetted' became the catch-all term as it was one of the few widely-distributed and publically available ways of marking every step of an officer's career. It wasn't until 1814 that the Admiralty published an official directory of all its commissioned officers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
I got a model of HMS Prince of Wales recently, 1/700, waterline, from Tamiya. Two questions: was the Prince of Wales and her sister the only two battleships completed in line with the Washington Naval Treaty? And, I looked on wikipedia and read about the Hood/Prince of I guess my other question is "is 'it was a shambles' fair', because it sure seems like the RN for once could have the warship engagements it really loved, but still miffed it thanks to lack of attention to detail. Prince of Wales would puncture Bismarck's fuel bunkers, which would lead to Bismarck murder eventually, but this seems pretty small Also PS could the last battleship HMS Vanguard take the Bismarck in a straight fight
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:33
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:I'm not too familiar with the present USN arsenal. Is there a VLS-capable torpedo filling the ASROC role? Yeah, it's called VL-ASROC  I guess those massive Russian missiles with shaped charge warheads will gently caress up a battleship real good, they were made to sink carriers. Even older P-15s had 500 kg HEAT warheads and that is bad news for a battleship. Best (or worst) thing is the fuel tank is in front of the warhead so it will spray burning rocket fuel on the target as well. Have fun putting that fire out, DC crews. Gervasius fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Sep 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Missouri never sank an enemy ship. I"m like 99.9% sure that her guns were only ever used for shore bombardments. Iowa did, so recomm her or the Massachusetts, which didn't sink a ship but is the last surviving American battleship to slug it out with another of her kind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Missouri never sank an enemy ship. I"m like 99.9% sure that her guns were only ever used for shore bombardments. yeah, shore bombardments in WWII, the Korean War, and Desert Storm
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:09
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:The suez has locks in the show iirc They wouldn’t be a bad idea in reality. It might have slowed the spread of invasive species. bewbies posted:Also nukes aren't HE you idiots I mean, the front does propagate at supersonic velocity…
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:The Chaco war had some tank use... on one side. Yeah, the losing side.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:36
|
|
|
zoux posted:How many warships have US subs sunk Do we count the Scorpion possibly sinking herself as a kill? Serious answer, a US sub sank the IJN Shinano with four torpedos. It was such an unbelievable event that the captain didn't get credit until after the war because no one believed him that he sank a carrier and no one in ONI knew that the Shinano had been converted at the time, so it was assumed to be a lie until they got a look at the Japanese records post-war Don Gato fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Sep 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:I'm not too familiar with the present USN arsenal. Is there a VLS-capable torpedo filling the ASROC role? Yeah, but that drops a Mk46 with a dinky 100-lb warhead. That’s not doing poo poo to an Iowa, and does it even have a surface attack mode?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 07:19 |
|
|
I'm kinda curious what the railguns they're developing would do to an Iowa class.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:22
|
|
